I'm going to have to say it - in places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen hey are getting more people riding by making cycling easier. Somehow a mass effort to cause greater congestion by less cycling does not seem to achieve that to my mind. It just comes across as a lot of spiteful negativity.

A humorous concept but I don't like your chances of getting away with it without a backlash

That's even if you do get enough response to make a noticeable difference. I suspect it may turn out a bit like the 'increased congestion' from New York's new closed off streets and separate bike lanes - people have found other solutions and there is no measurable increase in congestion. One day is easy for many people - take an RDO if you're worried about the traffic.

Sorry about the negativity, but I see this as a very negative piece of activism.

I too have doubts. I don't see it as negative or spiteful, but I'm uneasy about the idea that the main social benefit of cycling is reducing traffic congestion. It seems to pander to motorists' sense of entitlement. Transport policies that regard reducing traffic congestion as an end in itself irritate me no end (the idea, surely, is to transport people whether in ways affected by traffic congestion or not) and I'm equally dubious about activism that uses congestion to make a point.

Ah but chaps, it's not just about easing congestion. This is also about the safety of cyclists on a road network that is already under massive pressure in our capital cities. Nevertheless, this is the one day of the year when all those who diispute our rights on the black stuff will get to see what their alternative is. And besides, you can't get a Queensland State Minister to do anything for less than $11,000 these days, so lobbying is even less likely to have an impact on it's own up here at least.

The 2nd Womble wrote:Ah but chaps, it's not just about easing congestion. This is also about the safety of cyclists on a road network that is already under massive pressure in our capital cities. Nevertheless, this is the one day of the year when all those who diispute our rights on the black stuff will get to see what their alternative is. And besides, you can't get a Queensland State Minister to do anything for less than $11,000 these days, so lobbying is even less likely to have an impact on it's own up here at least.

Well, that is entirely the point. The one thing that in my experience angers motorists before they've even seen their first filtering cyclist every morning is the traffic they're stuck in. Many of them don't know what congestion is. Yet. We heed the calls to get what is perceived to be one of the biggest banes of their existance off "their" roads, but the sting in the tail is that we worsten their commuting experience by simply sitting doing exactly the same thing in driving from A to B for the day. It's so simple and such an effective vehicle for highlighting the need for cycling issues to be taken more seriously, and technically we're doing nothing that anyone can comp[lain about on the day.

The 2nd Womble wrote:Well, that is entirely the point. The one thing that in my experience angers motorists before they've even seen their first filtering cyclist every morning is the traffic they're stuck in. Many of them don't know what congestion is. Yet. We heed the calls to get what is perceived to be one of the biggest banes of their existance off "their" roads, but the sting in the tail is that we worsten their commuting experience by simply sitting doing exactly the same thing in driving from A to B for the day. It's so simple and such an effective vehicle for highlighting the need for cycling issues to be taken more seriously, and technically we're doing nothing that anyone can comp[lain about on the day.

Traffic congestion is not a problem. Traffic congestion is but one symptom of a problem: people taking longer than is optimal to get where they want to go. Solving traffic congestion gives priority to car travel time over other means of transport. Making an issue of traffic congestion, which is your stated purpose, gives credence to a way of thinking which is pathetically misguided: that transport policy is largely about optimising car journey times.

We both see things very differently. building another road to ease congestion is simply too expensive these days. Cost of new infrastructure now weighs roughly the same as cost of next election. I'm intent on continuing to lobby, campaign and do what I can to keep cycling issues front and centre so when the Pollies start asking about the alternatives, cycling issues and solutions will be near the top of their lists.London's first D2W Day in 2012 saw a noticeable increase in congestion on the day and it did help to focus greater attention on cycling issues, so result. This year they'll be improving on it and having even more impact.

I too feel the need to voice opposition to this project, as I have in the past. I feel that it's spiteful and vindictive, leading to more devisiveness and increasing the "us against them" mentality. To me it seems like a base action, looking at the problem too simply. I don't think it's a good way to promote cycling to others, and I feel that it will do the opposite of its goals of getting motorists to think "hey, there's a cyclist; I must be courteous because they're reducing congestion. Go cyclist!".

The 2nd Womble wrote:We both see things very differently. building another road to ease congestion is simply too expensive these days. Cost of new infrastructure now weighs roughly the same as cost of next election. I'm intent on continuing to lobby, campaign and do what I can to keep cycling issues front and centre so when the Pollies start asking about the alternatives, cycling issues and solutions will be near the top of their lists.London's first D2W Day in 2012 saw a noticeable increase in congestion on the day and it did help to focus greater attention on cycling issues, so result. This year they'll be improving on it and having even more impact.

Huh. They've announced some new infrastructure just down the road from me. A bike path: around $2 million. New road: $200 million. My dad always told me, One order of magnitude should probably get your attention - two definitely should*. I take two things away from this. One, the message that building another road to ease congestion is too expensive hasn't got through and two, easing traffic congestion is a priority and value-for-money (or anything else) be damned. This is a bridge over a train line in suburban Brisbane we're talking about, and they are going to spend roughly three times what they spent to (quite reasonably) ensure that the D'Aguilar Highway doesn't slide off the side of the Blackbutt Range any time soon. This is a generation's worth of spending on cycling infrastructure spent to get over one level crossing. Did I mention there's another bridge over the railway line all of about a kilometre away? I cannot think of a family-friendly way to describe this idiocy.

I'm all for greater attention on cycling issues, but "fixing traffic congestion" is a ridiculous idea. May I also point out that this is compatible with the view that cyclists don't belong on the road (for "the road", read "the road that I, the plucky Brisbane Motorist, am currently occupying). Anyway, good luck to you. As you may have gathered, I can't see myself taking part.

My concern with this is that it wont really have enough of an effect.Drivers in peak hour are used to being caught in traffic congestion and are just as likely to think that it is just another bad traffic day - and then the point of it gets lost.

Would actually love to see it have a powerful effect, so will watch to see the result with interest.

il padrone wrote:I'm going to have to say it - in places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen hey are getting more people riding by making cycling easier. Somehow a mass effort to cause greater congestion by less cycling does not seem to achieve that to my mind. It just comes across as a lot of spiteful negativity.

A humorous concept but I don't like your chances of getting away with it without a backlash

That's even if you do get enough response to make a noticeable difference. I suspect it may turn out a bit like the 'increased congestion' from New York's new closed off streets and separate bike lanes - people have found other solutions and there is no measurable increase in congestion. One day is easy for many people - take an RDO if you're worried about the traffic.

Sorry about the negativity, but I see this as a very negative piece of activism.

It's your right to drive - you pay rego for the car, why can't you drive? After all, they all want bikes off the ride to ease the slowness and congestion that bikes cause, because they ride all over the place and slow everyone down. Give the the critics what they want.

g-boaf wrote:It's your right to drive - you pay rego for the car, why can't you drive? After all, they all want bikes off the ride to ease the slowness and congestion that bikes cause, because they ride all over the place and slow everyone down. Give the the critics what they want.

Actually, driving is a privilege, not a right. This privilege is gained by earning a driver's license. Anyone can pay rego for a car.

g-boaf wrote:It's your right to drive - you pay rego for the car, why can't you drive

Incorrect.

g-boaf wrote:After all, they all want bikes off the ride to ease the slowness and congestion that bikes cause, because they ride all over the place and slow everyone down. Give the the critics what they want.

It would be fun to nominate one carpark in each capital city for the cyclists to drive to before unloading their bikes and riding to work. If I drive, I'm still likely to leave early in the morning, so I won't be contributing to congestion and I miss out on my ride. But If I dump my van in a car park for the day, I get to make a point AND I still get my ride in. Win-Win!

Because I'm a spiteful bastard who rides on the roads every day, and rarely a day goes by without someone doing something either accidentally or more often deliberately to make my life miserable. Those a-holes should APPRECIATE that we aren't taking up a car space on the road or a parking space in a car park instead of bitching about rego and that roads are for cars and trying to intimidate or kill us.

twizzle wrote:Don't forget, at the appropriate time, to have a big complain about National Ride To Work day and how it ruins the day for everyone else.

That's the other thing - I really doubt that it will. Part of the foolishness of motorists' complaints about cyclists is their ignorance of where the problem lies. Even in the inner suburbs of Melbourne cyclists only comprise 4% of commuters, generally its more like 1-2% of commuters. Say you get a good response and 50% of cycle commuters drive - that's a <1% increase to traffic (maybe 2% in the CBD). It will have far less impact than the difference between school holidays and regular term-time commuting.

I may be proven wrong but that's how I look at it. Not trying to rain on anybody's party, just how I see it.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.